Heartless Libertarian
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." P.J. O'Rourke

9/21/2006

Thailand & the RKBA

It's taken as a given, at least among the pro-RKBA crowd, that part of the intent of the Framers when they added the Second Amendment to the Constitution, in addition to protecting the United States from external threats-i.e., foreign invasion-was to allow the people, and the states, to defend their liberty against a tyrannical government. And the major reason that they included the part about a "well regulated militia" was because they feared the potential for tyranny inherent in a standing army.

I mention this because much of what the Founders feared for our own country has happened in Thailand. The army of that country has overthrown a democratically elected government. (I'm not going to get into an argument as to exactly how democratic the government of Thailand may or may not have been. It's really not important to the point I'm about to make.)

Now, I really have no idea as to the state of the RKBA in Thailand. Again, it's not really germaine to the argument that I'm about to get to (trust me.) I have no idea if Thai citizens have guns or not. Even if they do, I'm not sure how much difference it would make.

Why? Because looking at news photos coming from Thailand, I see a the military deploying a large number of something that even the well armed citizens of the USA are ill-equipped to stand up to.

Tanks.

Even if the NFA '34 and the 1986 Hughes Amendment had never existed, and law-abiding Americans had unfettered access to machineguns of all sorts, there isn't much they could do against heavy armor. At least not without anti-tank weapons.

Sooner or later, whenever it is pointed out to anti-gun folks, and even to a lot of pro-gun folks, that a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment and the intent behind it inevitably leads to the fact that the Amendment protects the right of individuals to own standard Infantry weapons-meaning full auto ones-these folks inevitably try to counter with the "What about bazookas?" argument.

I think that recent events in Thailand provide a lovely counter to that response. Given that the Founders intent in writing the Second Amendment was to give the people the ability to resist a tyrannical government, and especially a tyrannical government backed by a standing army, I think it is only logical that, if they could have forseen the use of armored vehicles impervious to small arms fire by the armies of the world, that James Madison et al, would agree that yes, the RKBA does protect the right of the citizenry to own RPGs, Javelin missiles, AT mines, and any other weapon necessary to be able to effectively check the armed power of the State.

Note that while, in my opinion, this expansive interpretation of the RKBA also would include the right of citizens to own tanks and other armored vehicles and even jet fighters of their own, assuming they could afford them, I don't think this would necessary include nuclear weapons or other WMDs. Primarily because I really can't think of a way that they could be used to resist a tyrannical government that wouldn't be extremely terroristic.

Something I Don't Understand

Why is it that when companies collaborate or otherwise join together in order to increase the prices they charge for their products, it's considered bad and immoral, a restraint on free commerce, but when workers join together (ie, for a union) in order to charge a higher price for their product (labor), it's considered, at least by the government, to be a good thing and deserving of protection?

They're both essentially the same thing, and yet one in outlawed and prosecuted, while the other is protected.